From Aussie, Aussie, Aussie, Oi, Oi, Oi to Out, Out, Out: Labor passes temporary visa legislation
Sydney, 12 March 2026 — Following the passage of a new law which creates powers to temporarily block travellers from… Read More
Australia’s identity is deeply tied to its history of welcoming those in need. From people displaced by the Vietnam War to those fleeing more recent conflicts in Afghanistan and Ukraine, the country has often stepped up in moments of global crisis. But as the Government considers the 2026–27 Humanitarian Program, we must ensure Australia does not fall short of its own values.
In our recent submission to the consultation, the Asylum Seekers Centre argues that maintaining 20,000 humanitarian places represents stability – but not ambition. For a nation with Australia’s resources and global standing, this figure amounts to little more than a baseline commitment. Previous policy platforms outlined a pathway to 27,000 places, a target that would better reflect both capacity and responsibility. Expanding the program would not only change lives for those resettled, but also strengthen Australia’s international leadership and multicultural fabric.
Our submission also highlights a critical issue within the onshore protection system. Of the 20,000 humanitarian places designated last year, only around 4,000 were allocated to people already in Australia seeking protection. This limited allocation creates unnecessary delays and uncertainty for those who have already reached safety. More importantly, it ties protection to quotas rather than need. In our submission, we call for the onshore program to be uncapped and decoupled from the offshore intake, allowing decisions to be made based on evidence and legal obligations.
Recent legislative changes raise further concerns. As noted in our submission, expanded ministerial powers to block entry for certain visa holders risk undermining access to safe and lawful pathways to seek asylum. When legal routes are restricted, people fleeing danger may be forced into more precarious journeys—an outcome that contradicts the very principles the system is meant to uphold.
At its core, this moment is about direction. Will Australia maintain a cautious approach, or will it choose to lead with generosity and fairness? As our submission makes clear, a stronger humanitarian program – one that grows in size, removes arbitrary caps, and protects access to asylum – would better reflect both Australia’s international obligations and its values.
